posted 21 September 2005 12:21 AM            

quote:

---

His inescapable conclusion is therefore that indigenous East Africans resemble Caucasoids and not Negroids.

Of course, that's exactly what I've been saying all these months. It's what Dienekes has been saying all along. It's what Coon and other "outdated" anthropologists were observing when they postulated a Mediterranean presence in East Africa. And now, all have been vindicated by a modern source whom the Afronuts themselves trust and reference.

---

This is exactly what an idiot and distorter like Erroneous E will say. Brace's views doesn't support Coon's[Coon said Horn of African and Rift Valley populations were Caucasoid Capsians from North Africa who migrated into and populated these regions in an earlier period] nor Erroneous E's views himself for Brace does not believe Horn of Africans and Upper Nile peoples are Caucasoids and Erroneous E never stated that Horn of Africans develoed their deatured in situ, he was maintaining the entire time[as well as Dienekes] that Horn of Africans were Caucasoid-Negroid hybrids and or that ingigenous "East African Caucasoids" existed at one time. I countered his silly asertions with information via e-mail communication with Brace et tal and Groves et tal, which ironically, Erroneous E seems to be distorting and using as proof. Now Erroneous E is back to his normal vices of distortion, so I e-mailed Dr. Brace again and this is his response. Posted below is my question and his response:

Hello Dr. Brace, I have another question for you. The webmater of this site http://www.geocities.com/racial_reality/ has taken this quote from your study, "Clines and Clusters" to mean East Africans like Somalis are craniofacially Caucasoid:

"As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa." (Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)


As I've tried to explain to him numerous times by directly quoting your work as well as our e-mail correspondence, Horn of Africans and Upper Nile people are the result of a peculiar microevolution via adaptation to a hot and dry climate and never did you you ever imply they were Caucasoids nor West Eurasian. I seek your clarification of the above quote from your study as well as where Horn of Africans group "racially". I seem to support Hiernaux's view that populations like Tutsis, Somalis, Masai, and Oromo belong to Elongated East African branch within the broad diversity of sub-Saharan Africans. Would i be wrong for supporting such a view? Thanks in advance and for the information you provided in your previous e-mail correspondence with me.


Best regards,

Charles Rigaud

Dr. Brace's response:

You have hit the nail right on the head. No, I certainly to not see those elongate east Africans as "caucasoid" and they do indeed make a case for microevolutionary change in situ. I just wish I had more data on people from that part of the world.

Thanks for understanding,

C. L. Brace

Nail in the coffin to Erroneous E's inane ramblings and distortions. He never concluded Horn of Africans were "Caucasoids" nor Caucasoid-like, neither does Brace's research support anything that Coon and all those other obsolete anthropologists postulated, but his work does support Hiernaux's views[his theory on Elongated East African morphology being a product of micro-evolutionary adaptation as well as stating Elongated East Āfricans are unrelated to Caucasoids as well as differing from them] whom Erroneous E unsuccessfully tried to dismiss. Now we have the words from Brace's mouth stated plainly, there is no room for distortion nor can Erroneous E make Horn of Africans Caucasoids, at least not through using Brace's words. This should be the end of it.

Erroneous E has never maintained Brace's position, this is from Erroneous E's own website regarding Somalis. Under "*CAUCASOID* subraces Erroneous E has the following:

quote:

---

East African: In the deserts and highlands of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Somalilands is found a concentration of several related Mediterranean types, mixed in varying degrees with negroes. To the west these partial whites border on Sudanese negroes; to the southwest the partially Hamitic tribes of Kenya and Uganda form art extension of the peripheral Mediterranean racial area. To the north, the Beja-Bisharin group of Hamitic-speaking nomads connect the East African Hamitic-speaking peoples with their wholly white Egyptian and Berber relatives of North Africa.

---

And this:

quote:

---

Racial Types
Though Ethiopians are generally Negroid in pigmentation and hair type, their Caucasoid (Mediterranean) accretions are evident in their cranial and facial morphology, which distinguishes them from pure West African Negroids.

---

Now how does anything Brace et tal has said supported this outdated obsolete anthropology from Coon? Erroneous E clearly was lying when he said thats what he's been saying all along.

Welcom back board, I'm back after helping out with the hurricane relief effort in Mississippi.

posted 21 September 2005 07:04 AM            

Brace is one of those scientists who doesn't believe in race, so of course he isn't going to call East Africans Caucasoid (or Negroid for that matter). I could have told you that without even asking him. But it's all just semantics, and it doesn't change his ultimate conclusion: Somalis more closely resemble Europeans and Middle Easterners than they do Sub-Saharan Africans.

This is an indisputable fact that won't go away no matter how desperately you want it to. However, there are two possible explanations for it:

* Coon's explanation is that East Africans have received Mediterranean admixture from the North.

* Brace's explanation is that East Africans have evolved Mediterranean affinities within East Africa.

Take your pick. But either way, the similarity between East Africans and Europeans remains. Both Coon and Brace are right about that. It's just a question of how the similarity came about.

posted 21 September 2005 07:12 AM            

quote:

---

Dr. Brace's response:

You have hit the nail right on the head. No, I certainly to not see those elongated east Africans as "caucasoid"

---

Looks like Brace took the nail and drove it right through Evil Euro's head.

quote:

---

Charlie Bass asks: why doesn't he email Brace himself and ask

---

Because he's terrified:

posted 21 September 2005 04:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Because he's [b]terrified:

[This message has been edited by rasol[/B]

---

posted 21 September 2005 09:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

I could have told you that without even asking him. But it's all just semantics, and it doesn't change his ultimate conclusion: Somalis more closely resemble Europeans and Middle Easterners than they do Sub-Saharan Africans.

---

Thought Writes:

Please be aware of the ruse that Evil E is employing here. Brace claimed that Horn of Africa populations were CRANIO-METRICALLY closer to a series of Eurasians than to other Sub-Saharan Africans. Evil E has taken this information and manipulated it to mean that Horn of Africa populations were PHENOTYICALLY closer to Eurasians than to other Sub-Saharan Africans. Cranio-metrics are but one aspect of overall phenotype. Europeans have diverse hair and eye color.

The objective of analyzing and comparing human phenotypes is to determine lineage and relationship and then perhaps better understand cultural and social evolution. Horn of Africa populations share not only a similar phenotype (limb elongation and skin color) with other Sub-Saharan Africans, but also share in a common bloodline via the PN2 clade.

The Greeks and the Irish and the Swedes have a diverse phenotype when it comes to hair and eye color, yet genetically the Greeks are outliers with Sub-Saharan PN2 bloodlines.

posted 22 September 2005 06:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Cranio-metrics are but one aspect of overall phenotype.

---

They're the most important aspect, as anthropologists are able to determine race from the skull alone, with no additional information. They can't do that by looking only at hair, eye or skin color.

Racial affinities of North and East Africans:

quote:

---

genetically the Greeks are outliers with Sub-Saharan PN2 bloodlines.

---

Greeks are neither outliers paternally nor autosomally. They're fully European:

posted 22 September 2005 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

They're the most important aspect, as anthropologists are able to determine race from the skull alone, with no additional information. They can't do that by looking only at hair, eye or skin color

---

Thought Writes:

Once again, your own source contradicts you.

Thought Posts:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

posted 23 September 2005 06:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Once again, your own source contradicts you.

---

Once again, your own illiteracy humiliates you.

1) Gill doesn't say that hair, eye or skin color alone are revealing about race. Together and with other traits, perhaps. But not alone like the skull.

2) He also says this:

posted 23 September 2005 08:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/002539-2.html

....which is why scientists ***don't** make inferences about race based on hair and eye color...

---

Then here you contradict yourself, yet again....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Gill doesn't say that hair, eye or skin color alone are revealing about race. Together and with other traits, perhaps.

---

Thought Writes:

Which one is it:

1) Antropologists DON'T make inferences about "race" using hair and eye color

OR

2) They DO make inferences about race using hair and eye color in conjunction with other trait?

Please make up your mind.

Of course in the end it makes no difference because Gill's comment is simply that - a comment. It is not peer-reviewed and hence cannot be used as primary evidence in any debate.

posted 24 September 2005 06:47 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoughtless:
Which one is it:

1) Antropologists DON'T make inferences about "race" using hair and eye color

OR

2) They DO make inferences about race using hair and eye color in conjunction with other trait?

Please make up your mind.

---

They DON'T, you illiterate ape:

"The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity."

Laymen use pigmentation etc. Scientists use the skeleton:

"I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people"

posted 24 September 2005 10:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

"The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the [b]perceptive observer of living humanity."

[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

Of course BONES are revealing to an osteologist, that is their specialty. In regard to the Somalis they have narrow noses and faces like some Eurasians and elongated limbs like ALL Sub-Saharan Africans. When we break out of the realm of specialization and use a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY approach we see that not only do Somalis have long limbs like other Sub-Saharan Africans, but they also share in the common PN2 bloodline as do the Greeks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Laymen use pigmentation etc. Scientists use the skeleton:

[i]"[b]**I AM** more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people"

[/B]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 25 September 2005 07:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
In regard to the Somalis they have narrow noses and faces like some Eurasians

---

Much more than that.

Analysis based on 24 cranial measurements:

quote:

---

but they also share in the common PN2 bloodline as do the Greeks

---

* Yawn *

quote:

---

But again, you source is NOT peer-reveiwed and this is indicative of your scientific standard.

---

posted 25 September 2005 10:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Analysis based on 24 cranial measurements:

---

Thought Writes:

1) AGAIN, cranial morpholopgy does not equal osteological phenotypic affinity in totality. Again, osteological phenotypic affinity does not equal phenotypic affinity in totality. Again, phenotypic affinity does not equal biological affinity.

2) The samples used in the study did not include many African peoples, including elongated West Africans such as Fulani and Tuareg. Hence as Groves and Brace himself admitt, the sample was incomplete and hence crate an inaccurate picture of African interrelatedness.

posted 25 September 2005 10:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

George Gill is reliable because he's an actual forensic anthropologist, which is more than can be said of that Negro sociologist Drake whose opinions you rely on.

---

Thought Writes:

Hi Evil E,

The point is not if Gill is reliable or not. The point is teaching you about the scientific method known as peer-review.

1) Peer-review is the standard within the scientific community.

2) Peer-review serves as a standard because it allows a real scientist to present his or her hypothesis to the scientific community, have that hypothesis reviewed and eventually accepted or rejected as a scientific standard.

There is no recent or current peer-reviewed scientific material that supports Gill's conclusions. Hence at this point in time it falls into the realm of psuedo-science. The difference between my use of Drake and your use of Gill is that you use Gill's non-peer-reviewed **OPINION** as your PRIMARY evidence, I use Drakes **OPINION** as supporting evidence to the peer-reviewed and accepted theories of Keita, Underhill, Angel, Brace, Groves, etc.

posted 25 September 2005 10:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

2) The samples used in the study did not include many African peoples, including elongated West Africans such as Fulani and Tuareg. Hence as Groves and Brace himself admitt, the sample was incomplete and hence crate an inaccurate picture of African interrelatedness.

---

Good point here. Hence, when Brace refers to sub-Saharans in his Clines and Clusters study, he's not referring to *ALL* sub-Saharans, just a few west-central groups like Gabon for example is one of his samples. He has never studied Sahelian Africans who are distinct from the West-Central group themselves. I've exchanged numerous e-mails with Dr. Brace, some of which I've elected not to post at this time, including one in which he comments about Erroneous E's website. I'll let Erroneous E keep misquoting and twisting Brace's views, we all know what his views really are.

posted 26 September 2005 06:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
The samples used in the study did not include many African peoples, including elongated West Africans such as Fulani and Tuareg.

---

Irrelevant. Whether those groups would fall into the Sub-Saharan cluster or join East Africans in the European/North African/Indian cluster wouldn't change the relationships delineated in the study as it is.

quote:

---

The point is teaching you about the scientific method known as peer-review.

---

You should really be preaching to Charlie_Bass, whose evidence these days consists of private e-mails from scientists. And to rasol as well, who regularly cites peer-rejected studies like that of Arnaiz-Villena.

quote:

---

There is no recent or current peer-reviewed scientific material that supports Gill's conclusions.

---

posted 26 September 2005 06:48 AM            

quote:

---

Just the entire history of physical anthropology, wherein race has been determined by measuring the skeleton

---

Leading us back to the topic of "Brace own words" which you continue to run away from: Terms like Caucazoid, Negroid and Mongoloid are worse than useless. - CL Brace.

posted 26 September 2005 12:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Irrelevant. Whether those groups would fall into the Sub-Saharan cluster or join East Africans in the European/North African/Indian cluster wouldn't change the relationships delineated in the study as it is.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 26 September 2005 12:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

You should really be preaching to Charlie_Bass, whose evidence these days consists of private e-mails from scientists. And to rasol as well, who regularly cites peer-rejected studies like that of Arnaiz-Villena.

---

Thought Writes:

1) Charlie is NOT using the email communications from Brace and Groves as PRIMARY evidence to support his postion. He uses peer-reviewed, scientific research to ESTABLISH his position and uses the email communications to gain clarity on the misuses of Groves and Brace by YOU.

2) Rasol has admitted that many of the specifics of the Arnaiz-Villena et al study are problematic, yet the general gist of the study is supported by Underhill, Keita, Crucianni, Hammer, and even Dienekes comments on his web site about Greeks being descendents of ancestral Mesolithic Somalis. In essence this is what Arnaiz-Villena claimed.

posted 27 September 2005 06:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
If you are claiming that West Africans and East Africans do not overlap in terms of crania then you are wrong. The Tuareg and Fulani are West African, both genetically and geographically, yet in terms of their cranial morphology they tend to have narrower noses and faces like East Africans.

---

The Tuareg are a mix of North and West Africans, to varying degrees depending on latitude, which would account for any overlapping. As to the Fulani, you have not provided genetic and anthropological proof that they're maternally and paternally West African and that they group with East Africans craniometrically.

But regardless, the grouping of Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Nubians, North Africans and Somalis with Europeans still stands.

quote:

---

Rasol has admitted that many of the specifics of the Arnaiz-Villena et al study are problematic, yet the general gist of the study is supported by Underhill, Keita, Crucianni, Hammer

---

Rasol is not qualified to make such determinations. The Arnaiz-Villena paper was rejected as invalid by Cavalli-Sforza and others. Period. And one of the stated reasons was its "extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans". Of course, no Y-chromosome or autosomal map has ever reproduced that peculiar result. In fact, even maps based on the exact same HLA gene don't support Arnaiz-Villena's bogus findings:

posted 27 September 2005 09:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
The Tuareg are a mix of North and West Africans, to varying degrees depending on latitude, which would account for any overlapping.

---

Thought Writes:

Thought Writes:

posted 27 September 2005 09:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

But regardless, the grouping of Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Nubians, North Africans and Somalis with Europeans still stands.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 27 September 2005 09:44 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Of course these relationships still stand. Black East Africans migrated to North Africa and neolithic Europe. Hence the similarity.

---

Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Nubians, and Somalis and [some] North AFricans ->

....and Oromo, and Borana, and Datoga, and Beja, and Fulani, and Tutsi and Burunge, and Masai, and Nara, and Siwa and Afar, and Tuareg and Iraqw, and Teda, and Jerba, and Harratin and Kunama, and...

posted 27 September 2005 09:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Of course these relationships still stand. Black East Africans migrated to North Africa and neolithic Europe. Hence the similarity.

---

Thought Writes:

Even your boy Dienekes is forced to subtley admitt the truth. From Dienekes Website:

Thought Posts:

Haplogroup frequency correlations in Southeastern Europe

"The spread of the Neolithic economy into continental Europe involved E3b bearers in a riverine expansion whose northern expression is associated with the Linearbandkeramik. This does not mean that E3b was the only haplogroup associated with these early European farmers, only that it definitely seems to correlate better with this movement compared to the other Neolithic haplogroup (J2).

posted 28 September 2005 06:32 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Sub-Saharan E3b and Middle Eastern Hg J spread from SE Europe into Germany and northern Europe, which would account for any overlapping between Europeans and Greeks.

---

Huh? I don't think even you know what that's supposed to mean. It's best to think things out before you write them down.

quote:

---

Of course these relationships still stand. Black East Africans migrated to North Africa and neolithic Europe. Hence the similarity.

---

posted 28 September 2005 08:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Huh? I don't think even you know what that's supposed to mean. It's best to think things out before you write them down.

---

Thought Writes:

Lame response. The facts remain:

1) East Africans have elongated features such as narrow-noses and narrow-faces.

2) East Africans spread narrow-noses and faces into Europe with the E3b lineage.

3) Hence when Brace studies Somalis and Neolithic Europeans he finds some cranio-facial overlap. This is understandable due to the immigration from East Africa to neolithic Europe. Hence, as Angel noted "Negroid traits in Anatolia and Neolithic Greece via Nubia..."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course these relationships still stand. Black East Africans migrated to North Africa and neolithic Europe. Hence the similarity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course your denial still stands. East Africans diverge from other Africans and cluster with Europeans. The Europeans don't diverge and cluster with those other Africans

---

Thought Writes:

Instead of facing the facts head-on you circle around the truth. Again:

1) The only evidence for divergence between East and West Africans that you have presented thus far is Braces cranio-facial results.

2) Brace admitted that he did not include elongated West Africans who would NOT diverge with East Africans.

posted 28 September 2005 09:08 AM            

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

Lame response.

---

posted 29 September 2005 07:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
2) East Africans spread narrow-noses and faces into Europe with the E3b lineage.

3) Hence when Brace studies Somalis and Neolithic Europeans he finds some cranio-facial overlap. This is understandable due to the immigration from East Africa to neolithic Europe.

---

Oh, so now the Neolithic English, Germans, Danes, Swiss, Russians etc. of Brace's study also have East African admixture. And the "negroid traits" that these East Africans transmitted are no longer broad noses and prognathism but narrow noses and faces. I see. That's very consistent with your previous statements.

quote:

---

1) The only evidence for divergence between East and West Africans that you have presented thus far is Braces cranio-facial results.

---

Which you've been trying desperately to run away from. If you have a craniometric plot or dendrogram in which Somalis, Nubians and Egyptians cluster with West Africans, then by all means, let's see it.

Oh, and there's also the genetic evidence that you can't refute and so choose to ignore:

quote:

---

2) Brace admitted that he did not include elongated West Africans who would NOT diverge with East Africans.

---

How can he possibly know they wouldn't diverge if he didn't include them in his analysis?

quote:

---

3) Brace ONLY addressed ONE aspect of phenotype and that was cranio-facial.

---

Which is the aspect by which anthropologists have distinguished the races of man since the field's beginnings to the present day.

quote:

---

In terms of skin color, eye color, hair color, limb elongation, and most importantly bloodline East and West Africans share in a common lineage via the PN2 clade.

---

Proto-Caucasoid East Africans have mixed with Niger-Congo-speaking Negroes, which is why modern phenotypes in the region range from this:

To this:

posted 29 September 2005 08:26 AM            

quote:

---

DumbEuro writes: which is why modern phenotypes in the region....

---

....of southern Europe range from pale "Nordish" to dark Moorish.....

I suggest you go back to working on your Ginney-fro, as your laughable attempts at "vindication" have failed miserably.

posted 29 September 2005 07:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

Oh, so now the Neolithic English, Germans, Danes, Swiss, Russians etc. of Brace's study also have East African admixture.

---

Thought Writes:

1) E3b is a Sub-Saharan derived genetic lineage/bloodline.

2) E3b spread to Europe from Africa with Neolithic agriculturalists.

3) Neolithic English, Germans, etc. all have E3b.

4) Hence, Neolithic English, Germans, Danes, Swiss, Russians, etc. have the E3b African bloodline.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

And the "negroid traits" that these East Africans transmitted are no longer broad noses and prognathism but narrow noses and faces.

---

Thought Writes:

Hi Evil E,

I want to introduce you to a new term today:

"Context"

Websters Dictionary:

"The part of a written or spoken statement that surronds a word or passage and that often specifies its meaning."

Within the context of Africa NE Africans tend to have narrower noses and faces. Within the context of Neolithic Europe the immigrating Black NE Africans tended to have broader noses and more prognathism. Context is essential....unless one is attempting to mislead or misinterpret the data.

Thought Posts:

Am J Hum Biol. 2004 Nov-Dec;16(6):679-89. Related Articles, Links

Exploring northeast African metric craniofacial variation at the individual level: a comparative study using principal components analysis.

Keita SO.

"Stated in relative terms, the northeastern Africans tend to exhibit narrower bases in relationship to more projecting faces, and broader nasal areas than Europeans, although there is range of variation. Relative to the other African groups, they have narrower nasal areas and narrower faces in relationship to vault length. The crania from the northeast quadrant of Africa collectively demonstrate the greatest pattern of overlap with both Europeans and other Africans. Variation was found to be high in all series but greatest in the African material as a whole. Individuals from different geographical regions frequently plotted near each other, revealing aspects of variation at the level of individuals that is obscured by concentrating on the most distinctive facial traits once used to construct "types." The high level of African interindividual variation in craniometric pattern is reminiscent of the great level of molecular diversity found in Africa. These results, coupled with those of Y chromosome studies, may help generate hypotheses concerning the length of time over which recent craniometric variation emerged in Africa."

posted 29 September 2005 08:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Proto-Caucasoid East Africans have mixed with Niger-Congo-speaking Negroes, which is why modern phenotypes in the region range from this:

To this:

---

LOL The dumb-mutt is very desperate!

"Proto-caucasoids" in Africa?!! There is no such thing!! And for the thousandth time Somalis have NOT mixed with Niger-Congo speakers!!! Bantus are and have always been a minority!

And as far as how Somalis look, your SAME SELECTIVE pics aren't fooling me or anyone else here. The vast majority of Somalis look like the latter of your 2 pics not the former. I know because I have Somali friends and have been to the Somali community. That guy in the first pic is the first I've seen that looks like that!!

Sorry Dumb-Mutt, get a life!!

A REAL ONE!

posted 30 September 2005 06:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
....of southern Europe range from pale "Nordish" to dark Moorish.....

---

...displaying the normal pigmentary variation found throughout Europe. Whereas the Somalis' differences are unique to the transitional zones of East Africa and the Sahara, and they involve much more than just pigmentation.

quote:

---

"Oh", you mean the map in which the Lemba Bantu are closer to the Greeks than the Ethiopians are.

---

No, I mean the Y-chromosome plot in which priestly Lemba are half Semitic, Ethiopians are predominantly Caucasoid, and Greeks cluster with other Europeans. The same plot that you've had no answer for coming up on a year now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Within the context of Neolithic Europe the immigrating Black NE Africans tended to have broader noses and more prognathism.

---

I see, so these narrow noses are actually "broad" compared to European noses, and yet they're the source, according to you, from which Europeans have inherited their narrow noses, via Neolithic E3b -- even those Europeans who have almost no E3b.

I would also like to introduce you to a new term:

"Crap"

Webster's Dictionary:

posted 30 September 2005 08:31 AM            

quote:

---

EuroMulatto writes: displaying the normal pigmentary variation found throughout Europe.

---

Sure it's "normal". It's also normally found among Southern Europeans who normally have very high levels of African admixture [per Wetton].

That's the point - normal people get it.

posted 30 September 2005 09:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:

I see, so these narrow noses are actually "broad" compared to European noses, and yet they're the source, according to you, from which Europeans have inherited their narrow noses, via Neolithic E3b -- even those Europeans who have almost no E3b.

---

Thought Writes:

Again, **CONTEXT** is important. Let's review the context of this discourse:

---------------------------------------------
quote:

Originally posted by Thought2:
Sub-Saharan E3b and Middle Eastern Hg J spread from SE Europe into Germany and northern Europe, which would account for any overlapping between Europeans and Greeks.
---------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Evil E:
Huh? I don't think even you know what that's supposed to mean.

---------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Thought2
2) East Africans spread narrow-noses and faces into Europe with the E3b lineage.

---------------------------------------------

Thought Writes:

As you can see from my original comment above I did NOT claim that : "Europeans did not have narrow noses and faces before the migration of E3b carrying Black Africans into Europe."

posted 01 October 2005 06:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Sure it's "normal". It's also normally found among Southern Europeans who normally have very high levels of African admixture

---

Irish Pigmentary Variation:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
As Brace himself stated, the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology is indigenous to East Africa.

---

posted 01 October 2005 09:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evil Euro:
Exactly. Indigenous East Africans were not similar to your West African Negro ancestors. They were more similar to Europeans, including Europeans with little or no E3b.

---

Thought Writes:

Wrong, your running in circles again. A clear sign of defeat. Each point that you have raised thus far has allready been addressed and you have no logical response, hence you start over and repeat what has allready been disproven.

posted 02 October 2005 06:54 AM            

"You have hit the nail right on the head. No, I certainly to not see those elongate east Africans as "caucasoid"

posted 02 October 2005 07:00 AM            

Wrong, your running in circles again. A clear sign of defeat. Each point that you have raised thus far has allready been addressed and you have no logical response, hence you start over and repeat what has allready been disproven.

Then Thought Repeats:

In some ways, some East Africans have phenotypic overlap with some Europeans, in other ways some East Africans have phenotypic overlap with West Africans. There are likewise some elongated West Africans like the Tuareg and Fulani that have phenotypic overlap with East Africans and some Europeans. This overlap is due to neolithic migration of East Africans into Europe and/or chance. East and West Africans on the otherhand have phenotypic overlap due to direct genetic relationship.

posted 02 October 2005 07:04 AM            

"You have hit the nail right on the head. No, I certainly to not see those elongated east Africans as "caucasoid"

Evil Euro after this message was posted

"Brace's position implies that indigenous East Africans were of a Caucasoid or proto-Caucasoid type, and totally unrelated to Negroids"

Lies and distortion documented.